On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Nathan
<nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Marc Riddell
<michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net>wrote;wrote:
Yes, Nathan, please answer Steve's question;
because it is my question as
well. Just what exactly are these "long-term goals" that would require an
increased, steady source of funds?
Any long term goals require a steady source of funds. People are fickle
with
donation
money, and relying on individual donors for the duration is not sound
policy. If we
want the Foundation to exist and be relevant in 20 or 40 years, then it
needs a way
to meet its spending needs without relying on the charitable giving climate.
I and others have written lists of worthwhile tasks that the Foundation
could perform
if it had the money, in the times that the advertising issue has been
discussed previously
on this list. Since you were both subscribed to the list at that time, there
seems to be
no reason to rehash it. Even if you completely forgot and are unable to
search for the
last thread on your own, I'm sure you are imaginative enough to come up with
one or two
things that would significantly further the goals of the Foundation but
require more and
more regular funding than it currently has.
As a matter of statistical fact, people aren't that fickle with
donation funding... Large nonprofits generally don't have that much
uncertainty on a short term basis.
Long term statistical trends are observable and manageable.
Ultimately, the stability question gets solved by forming a endowment.
Which is probably premature here, but on the appropriate solutions
palate.
Sure, we could "sell out", and make a very significant (tens of
millions of dollars or more) income stream. The customers (users who
don't edit) wouldn't mind it if it was done in a limited and tasteful
manner.
But the community would rip itself apart and a large portion of those
involved would leave, forking and never coming back.
There's nothing we can do with that amount of money, towards the goals
of the Foundation or projects, which would make up for the community
damage that would be caused.
I'll go out on a limb here, monkey traveling to the west
style...
The situation in terms of the cost/benefit of advertising
is much more stark, clear and unequivocal than that
even.
In an IRC conversation with Jimbo, which I doubt he
recalls, with his mercifully short memory span...
I expressed the problem of advertising, in terms of
eating seed grain.
We could never have written what content we have
written, by paying people the money that we have
received as donations, never mind the frigging
servers...
No amount of donations could have payed people to
write our content. Period.
I stop here. Because if you can't connect the dots from
there on in, to the obvious conclusion... No amount of
argument can get you to see you have a nose in front
of your eyes...
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen